The Tory leadership

The generation game

Despite Michael Howard's best efforts, it still looks like David Davis

IN THE immediate aftermath of another bleak election result for the Tories, Michael Howard, the Conservative Party leader, signalled that he would do his party one last, important service. Rather than quit immediately, he would stay on long enough to put in place a new system of electing a leader. In the five months before that could happen, the contenders would have the chance both to debate the future direction of the party and to show whether they were up to the job.

But many suspect that was not quite all Mr Howard intended—that he was also hoping to deny the top job to the bookies' favourite, David Davis, the shadow home secretary, while advancing the cause of two young favourites, David Cameron and George Osborne. Mr Howard hoped to achieve his first objective by restoring to the party's MPs the sole power to elect the leader. Mr Davis, much-admired by party activists for his battered good looks, humble origins and robustly right-wing views, has acquired a reputation among his fellow MPs for disloyalty. By making Mr Cameron (38) shadow education secretary and Mr Osborne (33) shadow chancellor, Mr Howard appeared to be suggesting that the party should skip a generation and pick one or other of those two bright young things to succeed him.

But Mr Howard's efforts on his protégés' behalf may have been counter-productive. Although an election under the new rules cannot take place until November, Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, who are posh as well as youthful, are already the object of much spiteful comment from their colleagues. One senior MP observed: “On top of our usual disagreements we are now riven with ageism and class hatred.” Another says: “Just because they're metropolitan and have gay friends, Michael thinks they're the future.” Should Mr Osborne, who, it must be said, is bright and personable, be crushed beneath Gordon Brown's tank tracks, there will be much glee on the benches behind him.

By so blatantly favouring Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, Mr Howard has infuriated capable and experienced fortysomethings, such as Andrew Lansley, David Willetts and Damian Green. Though their own hopes of emerging as contenders may be slim, they are the kind of people who any prospective leader will need to woo and win over. The same goes for the even more ancient Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Tim Yeo.

Having whipped up resentment and jealousy, Mr Howard's hopes of stimulating a serious discussion about what the party needs to do to make itself electable are unlikely to be realised. Potential candidates declare their modernising credentials by turning up tieless in television studios where they spout wearingly familiar slogans about change and the need to reconnect with the voters. But, so far, it is all woefully vague and short on specifics.

Meanwhile, Mr Davis increasingly has the look of a man who believes the prize is his to lose. After three election defeats, the Tories may finally have learned at least one thing: it is sensible to pick the leader who has the greatest appeal to the widest number of voters. And Mr Davis, the son of a single mother who grew up on a council estate, is serenely confident that he fits that bill. In interviews he tends to say little about how he would lead the party, and a lot about himself.

Ironically, the greatest threat he may face is not from either of the young guns, but from Kenneth Clarke, who is a year older than Mr Howard. Opinion polls still suggest that Mr Clarke, who will be nudging 70 at the time of the next election, is the person most people would like to see lead the Tories. Mischievously, Mr Clarke, although twice rejected by his party, has not ruled out standing.